DCT
0:26-cv-62027
Import Global LLC v. Sediment Buster LLC
Key Events
Complaint
Table of Contents
complaint Intelligence
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Import Global, LLC (Florida)
- Defendant: Sediment Buster, LLC (Florida); Plumbing Nerds MFG, LLC (Florida); and John Verhoff (Florida)
- Plaintiff's Counsel: Carlson IP Law
- Case Identification: 0:26-cv-62027, S.D. Fla., 07/23/2026
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurring in the district, including Defendants' sales to consumers, cease-and-desist demands directed to the Plaintiff's principal place of business in the district, and enforcement actions targeting the Plaintiff's business operations centered in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its water heater flushing tool does not infringe Defendant's patent, arguing the patent's claims expressly require "a compressed gas cartridge" which Plaintiff's product does not include, require, or instruct for use.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to plumbing maintenance tools used to flush sediment and mineral deposits from water heater tanks, a process necessary to maintain operational efficiency and extend the appliance's lifespan.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint details a history of pre-suit interactions, alleging that Defendants twice used the patent-in-suit to suppress Plaintiff's product on the Amazon marketplace. Plaintiff alleges it provided Defendants with a non-infringement opinion and highlighted the patent's prosecution history, where a broader claim term ("fluid supply device") was allegedly surrendered in favor of the narrower "compressed gas cartridge" limitation to overcome a prior art rejection. The complaint asserts that these facts give rise to prosecution history estoppel, barring any infringement claim under the doctrine of equivalents.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2018-03-18 | '044 Patent Priority Date |
| 2020-09-01 | USPTO issues non-final office action rejecting claims reciting a generic "fluid supply device" |
| 2021-08-10 | U.S. Patent No. 11,084,044 issues |
| 2025-07-12 | Plaintiff's counsel prepares a written non-infringement opinion |
| 2025-11-25 | Plaintiff's counsel provides non-infringement opinion and prosecution history to Defendant |
| 2026-01-XX | Accused Product launched on Amazon |
| 2026-01-12 | Defendant submits first patent complaint to Amazon against Plaintiff's product |
| 2026-01-27 | Defendant sends cease-and-desist demand to Plaintiff |
| 2026-01-30 | Plaintiff's counsel responds to demand, raising non-infringement and false marking issues |
| 2026-07-22 | Defendant submits a renewed patent complaint against Plaintiff via Amazon's APEX program |
| 2026-07-23 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,084,044 - "Sediment Buster for Water Container Flushing System Including Sediment Separator, and Associated Methods"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,084,044, titled "Sediment Buster for Water Container Flushing System Including Sediment Separator, and Associated Methods," issued on August 10, 2021.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the problem of sediment and mineral deposits accumulating in water heater tanks, which can reduce heating efficiency, cause corrosion, and clog pipes and valves '044 Patent, col. 1:41-54 Traditional flushing methods that rely on gravity are described as potentially ineffective against clogs and environmentally unfriendly due to water waste '044 Patent, col. 1:55-62
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an apparatus that attaches to a water heater's drain outlet to facilitate sediment removal '044 Patent, abstract As described in the detailed description, the device uses a fluid supply to inject fluid (gas) into the tank to "break up sediment accumulated at the drain outlet" '044 Patent, col. 2:30-35 The abstract and claims specify this fluid supply is a "compressed gas cartridge" '044 Patent, abstract '044 Patent, col. 8:15-18
- Technical Importance: The patented solution aims to provide a more forceful and targeted method for dislodging stubborn sediment compared to passive draining, thereby improving maintenance outcomes.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts that claims 1 and 2 of the '044 Patent are at issue Compl. ¶18
- Independent Claim 1 recites an apparatus for water heater draining comprising:
- a main body defining a conduit configured to be coupled to a drain outlet of a water heater;
- a first connector at one end of the main body and a second connector at an opposite end;
- an inlet valve on the main body;
- a shut-off valve on the main body to regulate fluid flow direction; and
- "a compressed gas cartridge coupled to the inlet valve for selectively supplying gas into the drain outlet via the conduit and the first connector." '044 Patent, col. 8:1-18
- The complaint notes that dependent claim 2 incorporates all limitations of claim 1 Compl. ¶46 Plaintiff seeks a declaration of non-infringement for both claims Compl. ¶18
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused product is Plaintiff's "SEDIMENT GONE™" water heater flushing tool Compl. ¶1
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the SEDIMENT GONE™ tool as an apparatus designed to connect to a water heater drain outlet Compl. ¶37 Its function is to "permit air from a separately supplied pump or compressor to break up sediment and facilitate flushing or draining" Compl. ¶37 The complaint emphasizes that the product is sold as a standalone tool, is not bundled with a compressed gas cartridge, does not require a cartridge for use, and does not instruct or encourage customers to use one Compl. ¶38 Instead, its substantial non-infringing uses are with a hand pump, bicycle pump, or conventional air compressor Compl. ¶39
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
This is a declaratory judgment action where the Plaintiff, Import Global, alleges its product does not infringe. The core of its argument is the absence of a required claim element.
- '044 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a compressed gas cartridge coupled to the inlet valve for selectively supplying gas into the drain outlet via the conduit and the first connector | The SEDIMENT GONE™ product does not include, is not sold with, and does not require or instruct the use of a compressed gas cartridge. It is designed for use with an external air pump or compressor. | ¶1; ¶38; ¶58 | col. 8:15-18 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Literal Non-Infringement: The primary dispute centers on a direct factual question: does the SEDIMENT GONE™ product, sold without a compressed gas cartridge, meet the explicit "compressed gas cartridge" limitation of claim 1? The complaint's position is that it cannot, as the element is entirely absent Compl. ¶58
- Prosecution History Estoppel: A significant legal question will be whether the patentee is estopped from arguing that an air pump or compressor is an equivalent to the claimed "compressed gas cartridge." The complaint alleges that the patent applicant narrowed the claims from a generic "fluid supply device" to the specific "compressed gas cartridge" to overcome a prior art rejection, which may give rise to a presumption that the patentee surrendered the territory between the broader and narrower terms Compl. ¶¶3, 47-52
- Disclosure-Dedication Rule: The complaint also raises the question of whether the disclosure-dedication rule applies. It notes that the patent specification explicitly discloses a "fluid pump" and a "compressed fluid supply" as alternative embodiments but that the issued claims recite only the "compressed gas cartridge," which may dedicate the unclaimed alternatives to the public Compl. ¶56 '044 Patent, col. 2:48-50
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "a compressed gas cartridge"
- Context and Importance: The construction of this term is central to the entire case. Plaintiff's declaratory judgment action is predicated on the argument that its product, which works with external pumps or compressors, entirely lacks this claimed component. The patentee's ability to assert infringement depends on whether this specific, structural term can be read to cover functionally similar but structurally different air sources.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not present evidence from the patent that would support a broad interpretation. A defendant in such a case might argue for a functional interpretation, but the specificity of the term "cartridge" presents a high barrier.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint presents significant evidence for a narrow, literal interpretation. The claim language itself is specific and structural ("cartridge"). The complaint alleges the applicant deliberately replaced the broader term "fluid supply device" with "compressed gas cartridge" during prosecution to achieve allowance, suggesting a clear surrender of broader scope Compl. ¶¶50-51 The patent abstract also specifically recites "a compressed gas cartridge," reinforcing its importance to the claimed invention '044 Patent, abstract
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint argues that Plaintiff cannot be liable for induced or contributory infringement because it does not instruct users to combine its product with a compressed gas cartridge and does not supply one Compl. ¶61 It further states the accused product is a staple article of commerce with substantial non-infringing uses (i.e., with pumps and compressors) Compl. ¶62
- Willful Infringement: While not a traditional willfulness claim, the complaint makes detailed allegations of Defendants' "objective baselessness" and "subjective bad faith" in asserting the '044 Patent Compl. ¶¶104-109 These allegations are based on Defendants' alleged knowledge of the patent's narrowing prosecution history, their receipt of Plaintiff's pre-suit non-infringement analysis, and their continued enforcement actions on Amazon, which Plaintiff uses to support its claims for tortious interference and to potentially seek attorney's fees Compl. ¶¶108-109 The complaint also includes a count for false patent marking, alleging Defendants mark their own product with the '044 Patent number despite instructing its use with an air pump, not the claimed cartridge Compl. ¶12 Compl. ¶¶88-89
VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim vitiation and estoppel: can the patentee assert infringement under the doctrine of equivalents by arguing an air pump is equivalent to a "compressed gas cartridge"? This raises the critical legal question of whether prosecution history estoppel, arising from the alleged surrender of a broader "fluid supply device" claim, bars any assertion of equivalence for the very subject matter that was surrendered.
- A related question is one of public dedication: does the patent's explicit disclosure of "fluid pump" and "compressed fluid supply" as alternatives, which were then omitted from the issued claims, operate to dedicate those alternatives to the public and independently bar an equivalence argument?
- A key evidentiary question will concern bad faith and false marking: did the patentee's enforcement actions on Amazon and the marking of its own products constitute bad faith or an intent to deceive, particularly in light of the patent's explicit claim language, its prosecution history, and the alleged pre-suit notice from the Plaintiff? This will be central to the non-patent claims and any request for exceptional case status.
Analysis metadata
Loading Complaint
Suggested improvements